Foundations of ecocide

Doing X makes other people think the actor is a good person; therefore, I will do X to signal I am a good person.

And how it plays out in reality:

Quote

Groups that care for Great Danes are preparing for a surge of rejected dogs, expecting the Hollywood movie "Marmaduke" will spur adoptions -- then abandonments -- of cute puppies which can grow to 170 lbs and eat 10 cups of food a day.

"We're all holding our breath," said Sandy Suarez, director and founder of Michigan-based Great Dane Rescue Inc. "We're planning on seeing a problem in about eight to nine months when the dog starts to get really big."

Movies and TV shows about animals often spur consumers to buy them for pets, and Kathie Shea, rescue chair for the Great Dane Club of America, said "Marmaduke" has increased demand for Great Dane puppies tenfold.

Monkey see, monkey do -- and in really horrible cases, call it "morality."

That's the means-over-ends idea; it doesn't matter what the goal is, certain methods work universally.

Conservatives, realists, nihilists, etc. are ends-over-means; methods do not exist in an absolute space, but are determined by what you need to do, and you can only figure that out by understanding the fullness of the situation outside yourself.

Monkey see, monkey do -- and in really horrible cases, call it "morality."

That's the means-over-ends idea; it doesn't matter what the goal is, certain methods work universally.

Conservatives, realists, nihilists, etc. are ends-over-means; methods do not exist in an absolute space, but are determined by what you need to do, and you can only figure that out by understanding the fullness of the situation outside yourself.

Morality, that what's allowed to do, it's not as light as it may appear at first, the term is deeply rooted in Tradition, and so it keeps a strong organic orientation, resulting in the morality of conservatives. The smart conservative, projects morality with the strength of Tradition into the future, allowing a rationalization which keeps a set of universal methods.

On the other hand, the disgrace of modern morality is its terrible looseness.

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make here. What is the relationship between the 'monkey see, monkey do' example with the dogs and means/ends reasoning? Also, how does the example relate to the contrast between the means-over-ends way of thinking and the conservative/nihilist/whatever way of thinking?

Also, how does the example relate to the contrast between the means-over-ends way of thinking and the conservative/nihilist/whatever way of thinking?

Means-over-ends: let's think backward. The effect can become the cause of itself.

Ends-over-means: let's think forward. We need to envision (scientific/natural selection method: study, hypothesize, test, modify) what effect we need and what cause will create it. Is the TV family happy because they bought a dog, or because they're a fantasy?

The advantage of means first is you get to stick with pretentious social Puritanism and always be the good guy even if you not only fail at the goal but screw up other things in the process. Goals-oriented is socially disadvantageous because you're interested primarily in truth or results and any means to get there will do. Someone's bound to get offended.

Goals-oriented is socially disadvantageous because you're interested primarily in truth or results and any means to get there will do.

Yet goals-oriented includes "use whatever tool is appropriate to the task," which would include that which resembles or is means-orientation. It's another way to communicate and link up causal forces in life, even if they are human and cowlike in their well-intentioned oblivion.

Biodiversity has decreased by an average of 28 percent globally since 1970 and the world would have to be 50 percent bigger to have enough land and forests to provide for current levels of consumption and carbon emissions, conservation group WWF said on Tuesday.

Unless the world addresses the problem, by 2030 even two planet Earths would not be enough to sustain human activity, WWF said, launching its "Living Planet Report 2012", a biennial audit of the world's environment and biodiversity - the number of plant and animal species.

According to the global Living Planet Index , declines in biodiversity are highest in low income countries, demonstrating how the poorest and most vulnerable nations are subsidizing the lifestyles of wealthier countries.

Since this document is not legally binding, let’s pull the magical eugenics rabbit out of the hat and quit futzing around. If one sits passively and allows the imminent population decline to be completely laissez-faire—entirely at the whim of famine, pestilence, weather, disease, and especially reproductive patterns—are we sure we can trust Mother Nature’s wisdom to make the best decisions? If we do, the future will belong to the most prodigious breeders, who statistically are among the dumbest mackerel flapping around this here gene pool. Is passively allowing a New World of Retards to blossom a truly more ethical option than actively trying to sculpt a world that’s more intelligent and functional? Would “natural” collapse somehow be less bloody, chaotic, and truly inhumane than managed pruning?

If we leave noone but a few aborigines, at least nature would survive in a better state and have room to grow.

If you target the "intelligent" populations to survive, you don't want the mediocre intelligent (i.e. average first world dweller), you'd only want the elite who can comprehend their connection to the whole.